Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

The sprint discussion thread

OP Gandalfur

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 724
  4. 725
  5. 726
  6. 727
  7. 728
  8. ...
  9. 738
To all of you anti sprint players, show me a current successful shooter that has no sprint on consoles.
Man, cutting those rules really narrow. Any more restrictions I should know of?

Also, DOOM 2016. Overwatch has a bunch of characters that don't Sprint. Right now we have a Halo 3 throwback playlist that's doing pretty well with no Sprint.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Sprint doesn't make a shooter successful.

If you're gonna tell me that we should be putting Sprint in Halo for the sake of copying other games, well I guess we know why Halo isn't as popular as the other shooters then.
It also has to have a player count of above 3,478 players, if my math is correct.
I will reply to this one just because it seems to have all of the counter arguments. I never said there was causation, but that a successful trend should be utilized if you want to have a high player count on a game. Halo has been trying to bridge that gap, and I think Halo 5 has had a solid ride. Trends exist for a reason, that's really all I am saying. Overwatch's popularity is a solid argument, but there are so many abilities in that game that it isn't an old school arena shooter. Maybe I should have been more specific. Mechanics need to evolve much like graphics. It's just a matter of finding that balance.
There's no point in copying a trend if the trend doesn't work in your game, or if you have to change everything about your game to make it fit.

You see Sprint everywhere because a lot of shooters follow the same role. High action, lot's of cover, with little health and guns can do a lot of damage in a very short time, if not instant. For the most part, Halo does not have that, considering it has shields and health, and the time to kill a player is on average nearly a full second.

It's why Halo has never attempted the ability to go prone yet, despite it being in other shooters.

Halo thought Loadouts were that "successful trend" in Halo Reach and Halo 4. Look how much good that did us.

Trends do exist for a reason. But when you add things because they're trendy, you stop innovating and start imitating.
I don't disagree. None of the things you said necessarily mean that sprint specifically shouldn't work. If it seemed tacked on, then I would agree. But it plays off of the other abilities within the confines of the game. Mechanics can certainly be imitated, but that is a hard line to draw when most shooters draw so much from each other. Halo 6 could do well by taking away some abilities, but lack of sprint would make it difficult for people coming from other games to feel comfortable. Maybe they will knock it out of the park with a fast movement speed, then you can be the first to say that you told me so. I just don't see that happening until Halo 7.
Sprint plays off the abilities because most of the abilities were made because of Sprint. Spartan Charge fully exists to limit Sprint. The only ability that doesn't share any relations with Sprint is Ground Pound, and sure enough that's the ability that impacts the game the least.

Shooters all draw from each other to at least some extent, but they do have a huge difference that serves as the foundation to their gameplay. Halo is already different from most other shooters and always have been.

You don't want people from other games to come to your game to try the same thing, you want people from other games to come to your game for a new experience. That's like one of the biggest reasons Halo 4 fell apart under a month after launch.
Spartan charge, as well as shield regeneration, as well as the layout of the maps for the most part. There is literally no other way to implement a new thing without adjusting the game for it. You may be right about doing the same thing, but that mentality goes against your initial argument of sprint not being the reason these games are successful. They don't come to Halo for sprint, but they feel comfortable that it is there. I would say that Halo bothered a few mechanics too many from Destiny, but sprint is a logical choice when comparing to games that 343 wants to take players from. Like I said in my initial post: it's about finding a balance. I don't think I will be changing your mind if you don't like sprint. For what it's worth, I don't either.
Richnj wrote:
treycen777 wrote:
Richnj wrote:
Played all the Halos but I like sprint bc it’s a realistic option. Spartans are superhuman and humans can sprint.
It's the whole reason Bungie gave us regenerating shields, and why it was changed from a medi-pack system to a shield system. It was more fun that way.
I do read the arguments and I hear the same weak arguments on both sides. I don't consider myself someone who likes sprint just someone who is okay with it. (1)If you show me an alternative that allows faster movement, I'm all ears. I personally would love faster base movement without sprint. I love Halo 4 not because of sprint but because of loadouts, AA, and awsome BTB maps(Vortex, Ragnarok, Meltdown). As I had to explain to another guy, I would have no problem if Halo 6 has no sprint. I just want faster movement. I absolutely hate how slow Halo 3's movement is.

The decline in population could be the fact that people are board of it and the new generation of gamers are playing COD. (4) Why would the change of gameplay lower population when the (5) majority of gamers are kids. (2) Many young gamers never played Halo 3. I have played every Halo, but can't get into classic multiplayer. I have tried Battlefield and COD and they just were not fun but Halo 4 is really fun despite being different from classic Halo. It feels similar but with more fluid movement and better weapon balance. (3) Maybe population has gone down due to so many more fps game options vs 10-15 years ago.
1) Doom. It has been said several times on here already. Increasing base movement speed is more than possible. It's also been said several times how part of Halo 3's slow feel is because of a low FoV. For someone that claims to have read the arguments you are still seemingly arguing that without sprint we'd be left with movement as slow as Halo 3.

2) Many Halo 3 players weren't kids. I made a ton of adult friends. And the majority of Halo 3 players had never played Halo 2, and many that I met had never played an FPS, left alone a MP title before. The appeal of Halo 3 wasn't based on previous experiences. It was based on the simple-to-learn/simple-to-understand nature of the game. (again, please refer back to my previous post and the link there in. It shows depth vs complexity and how complexity can actually drive players away from games early).

3) Maybe, but in 2007 alone we had Halo 3, COD 4, Team Fortress 2, Quake Wars, and Medal of Honor Airborne. All coming in to go against games like Rainbow 6 Vegas, COD 2, COD 3 and Battlefield 2. So I mean, people had options. So obviously Halo 2 players returned to Halo 3, then Halo 3 also picked up a ton of new players as well. Why? they had lots of options?, why Halo 3? other than hype, as I said, it was the simple yet deep gameplay. As I go in to later, Halo Reach and Halo 4 saw bigger declines in their population. So did that have more competition? FPS MP games out against Halo Reach = COD MW2/Black Ops, BF Bad Company 2 and AvP, much less competition than Halo 3 had. Halo 4 = COD MW3/Black Op 2, and Battlefield 3, that's even less competition (and as I point out, it performed the worst).

4) Now Halo Reach saw a decline. Wasn't a death sentence for the game or franchise but it was significant. Halo Reach is also the first game to be a departure from the equal starts simple gameplay as well. Then along comes Halo 4. The sequel to the last Classic Halo title, Halo 3. Halo 4 sold fantastically, nearly rivaling Halo 3. The promises 343i made about bringing Halo back to its roots (and yes, they did make those claims. I was active on the forums way back then Even the first gif of gameplay was done to appear like Halo 3) drove hype, drove excitement for the game, drove sales. It wasn't long however that people realised that Halo 4 did not deliver the classic experience 343i (and the title of Halo '4') promised. So the game saw a huge drop in population.

5) No they aren't. Only 29% of gamers are under 18. The average gamer is 31 years old. Funny that, since it better represents my age, and these gamers were almost adults when Halo 2 launched, they were 21 by the time Halo 3 came out. Linky. (This study is from 3 years ago, so that age has probably increased by at least another year)

The data seems to point at the fact that the more additions Halo took from COD in order to attract the people playing COD, the worse it performed. Now I hate the COD franchise, and actually including these elements drove me away from the Halo games. SO what really killed Halo was the lack of belief in the strength of being unique. Players were looking at COD and looking at Halo and seeing the two start to merge in their experiences. Only Halo did the experience far less effectively. SO COD lovers stayed on COD, and Halo loves left because Halo no longer felt like Halo. With all modern MP FPS shooters having Loadouts, Sprint and Abilities, Halo had the chance to side step competition and carve out its own community of players who don't want a 'modern' shooter. Instead it tried to compete directly and has failed. So yes, sprint (sprint being a symptom of a larger cause) has helped with the decline in Halo's popularity.
Richnj wrote:
3) Maybe, but in 2007 alone we had Halo 3, COD 4, Team Fortress 2, Quake Wars, and Medal of Honor Airborne. All coming in to go against games like Rainbow 6 Vegas, COD 2, COD 3 and Battlefield 2. So I mean, people had options. So obviously Halo 2 players returned to Halo 3, then Halo 3 also picked up a ton of new players as well. Why? they had lots of options?, why Halo 3? other than hype, as I said, it was the simple yet deep gameplay. As I go in to later, Halo Reach and Halo 4 saw bigger declines in their population. So did that have more competition? FPS MP games out against Halo Reach = COD MW2/Black Ops, BF Bad Company 2 and AvP, much less competition than Halo 3 had. Halo 4 = COD MW3/Black Op 2, and Battlefield 3, that's even less competition (and as I point out, it performed the worst).
Would you also say that in 2012 players chose Blacks Ops 2 over Halo 4 for its deeper gameplay? I ask this because I think there's a real danger of being overly subjective and inconsistent when speculating over why Halo 3 was as popular as it was, and Halo 4 wasn't.

Strictly speaking, based on popularity alone, there's no a priori reason to conclude that since Halo 3 was the most popular game on the Xbox 360 in 2007, and Halo 4 wasn't in 2012, that people preferred Halo 3 over Halo 4. All you can say with certainty is that back in 2007, Halo 3 was more appealing than all other shooters released in the same year, and that in 2012 Halo 4 was not as appealing as some of the other shooters released that year. However, when you deduce that this must mean Halo 3 was more appealing than Halo 4, you assume that Halo 4 was unpopular because it was worse than Halo 3 in the eyes of players. But it's equally possible that that the perceived quality of Halo games didn't change in that time, and instead the rest of the FPS genre simply caught up and surpassed Halo.

So, while it's true that Halo 4 didn't have significantly more competition than Halo 3 did, it is entirely possible that the competition Halo 4 faced was more competent than what Halo 3 faced. (And "more competent" here simply means more capable of holding the attention of players, not any subjective evaluation of quality.) Without any additional information, we can't rule out this possibility.

In general, answering the "why" of the population decline is pure speculation. There are internal factors that might play part such as changes in the game and franchise fatigue, as well as external factors such as trends. None of these can be ruled out as negligible based on the available data. Nobody knows why Halo isn't as popular as it used to be.
tsassi wrote:
Richnj wrote:
3) Maybe, but in 2007 alone we had Halo 3, COD 4, Team Fortress 2, Quake Wars, and Medal of Honor Airborne. All coming in to go against games like Rainbow 6 Vegas, COD 2, COD 3 and Battlefield 2. So I mean, people had options. So obviously Halo 2 players returned to Halo 3, then Halo 3 also picked up a ton of new players as well. Why? they had lots of options?, why Halo 3? other than hype, as I said, it was the simple yet deep gameplay. As I go in to later, Halo Reach and Halo 4 saw bigger declines in their population. So did that have more competition? FPS MP games out against Halo Reach = COD MW2/Black Ops, BF Bad Company 2 and AvP, much less competition than Halo 3 had. Halo 4 = COD MW3/Black Op 2, and Battlefield 3, that's even less competition (and as I point out, it performed the worst).
Would you also say that in 2012 players chose Blacks Ops 2 over Halo 4 for its deeper gameplay? I ask this because I think there's a real danger of being overly subjective and inconsistent when speculating over why Halo 3 was as popular as it was, and Halo 4 wasn't.

Strictly speaking, based on popularity alone, there's no a priori reason to conclude that since Halo 3 was the most popular game on the Xbox 360 in 2007, and Halo 4 wasn't in 2012, that people preferred Halo 3 over Halo 4. All you can say with certainty is that back in 2007, Halo 3 was more appealing than all other shooters released in the same year, and that in 2012 Halo 4 was not as appealing as some of the other shooters released that year. However, when you deduce that this must mean Halo 3 was more appealing than Halo 4, you assume that Halo 4 was unpopular because it was worse than Halo 3 in the eyes of players. But it's equally possible that that the perceived quality of Halo games didn't change in that time, and instead the rest of the FPS genre simply caught up and surpassed Halo.

So, while it's true that Halo 4 didn't have significantly more competition than Halo 3 did, it is entirely possible that the competition Halo 4 faced was more competent than what Halo 3 faced. (And "more competent" here simply means more capable of holding the attention of players, not any subjective evaluation of quality.) Without any additional information, we can't rule out this possibility.

In general, answering the "why" of the population decline is pure speculation. There are internal factors that might play part such as changes in the game and franchise fatigue, as well as external factors such as trends. None of these can be ruled out as negligible based on the available data. Nobody knows why Halo isn't as popular as it used to be.
It is speculation, and it is possible that the quality of COD games improved. Though looking at the Metacritic score for the Modern Warfare and Black Ops games, MW1, 2 and 3 all hold out at 94. Black Ops goes from 87 to 83, to 81 as the series goes on. I understand that Metacritic scores aren't perfect but it at least gives us the understanding that as a whole, the quality of the franchise didn't improve to rival Halo. So it's all down to that 'perception of quality' for the larger gaming audience.

As I said Halo 4 sold fantastically, but had a huge drop off. Based on what I experienced, and from what is supported based of Major Nelson's "Most Played Xbox Live" Blog ranging from 2007 and 2012. Halo 3 kept No 1 spot, even against a strong COD community for a full 3 years. Only when Halo faltered with Halo Reach did it lose this spot. We all remember the backlash Reach received. If Halo 3 had seen a slow but definite decline in its popularity against the newer COD games then I'd totally understand that the franchise and gameplay had seen fatigue. That wasn't the case. It was a change that sparked the decline in perceived quality.

So between 2007 and late 2009 players loved picking up and playing Halo 3. Then in 2010 those players have seemingly started to look elsewhere. In 2010, COD's the same as it's ever been and Black Ops 1 was not a huge departure for its franchise. The story and theme was getting a lot of attention, but the gameplay was the same as always. Not something to pull away players overnight.

It could be a coincidence, or just confirmation bias on my part, but to me that's a clear correlation. I'm not naive, I don't think the change in gameplay was the only issue. I think there were other outside factors and the differences in the Halo and COD communities that helped push people. However I think this change in gameplay started the issues off, and continue to exacerbate the problems facing Halo. Players had two communities. The Halo community talking about Halo Reach and eventually Halo 4, and how the games aren't as good as they use to be (and players are picking up these games, trying them and leaving when they aren't the same). Then they have the COD community talking about their sweet 360 no scopes and posting them on youtube, and since all the games play the same you only have to learn the maps to compete. All other learned skills are transferable (something I think has been a integral part of COD's popularity)

Speculation, sure, but I'd prefer to call them educated guesses since I have looked through as much data as is humanly possible to come to my conclusion. Which is that the mismanagement and changes to core mechanics are at the heart of that decline.
tsassi wrote:
Richnj wrote:
snip
So, while it's true that Halo 4 didn't have significantly more competition than Halo 3 did, it is entirely possible that the competition Halo 4 faced was more competent than what Halo 3 faced. (And "more competent" here simply means more capable of holding the attention of players, not any subjective evaluation of quality.) Without any additional information, we can't rule out this possibility.

In general, answering the "why" of the population decline is pure speculation. There are internal factors that might play part such as changes in the game and franchise fatigue, as well as external factors such as trends. None of these can be ruled out as negligible based on the available data. Nobody knows why Halo isn't as popular as it used to be.
While this might be partly true, you cannot ignore that fact how much the original formula from the first 3 have been changed. They changed it way to much, to many times in to many different ways, driving away the core loyal players while 343i tried it bring in a new audience, which failed; as you can see through their multiplayer not retaining players.

In 2007, Portal, Mass Effect, Crysis, Bioshock, and COD 4 were released. Solid games. Yet Halo stood its ground and remained king.

In 2012 we had Alan Wake, Hitman, And Darksiders. Yet Halo 4's population plummeted within weeks of launch. The loyal halo fan base, the ones that will continue to play the game DO NOT want main stream features added to classic Halo game play it's so simple! They may not come on way point to express their views, but they are expressing their displeasure of the 343i halo era simply by not playing the game.
Richnj wrote:
tsassi wrote:
Richnj wrote:
.
.

As I said Halo 4 sold fantastically, but had a huge drop off...

Speculation, sure, but I'd prefer to call them educated guesses since I have looked through as much data as is humanly possible to come to my conclusion. Which is that the mismanagement and changes to core mechanics are at the heart of that decline.
And you hit the nail right on the head here. Halo fans will keep buying the games without a doubt as there is so much love for the campaign as well. But to be frankly honest Halo is at a critical point with this next game. 2/3 of 343i games have failed to retain population. It's make it or break it now, fans will buy the game but it's up to 343i to go back to the triangle and keep players coming back.
Richnj wrote:
As I said Halo 4 sold fantastically, but had a huge drop off. Based on what I experienced, and from what is supported based of Major Nelson's "Most Played Xbox Live" Blog ranging from 2007 and 2012. Halo 3 kept No 1 spot, even against a strong COD community for a full 3 years. Only when Halo faltered with Halo Reach did it lose this spot. We all remember the backlash Reach received. If Halo 3 had seen a slow but definite decline in its popularity against the newer COD games then I'd totally understand that the franchise and gameplay had seen fatigue. That wasn't the case. It was a change that sparked the decline in perceived quality.

So between 2007 and late 2009 players loved picking up and playing Halo 3. Then in 2010 those players have seemingly started to look elsewhere. In 2010, COD's the same as it's ever been and Black Ops 1 was not a huge departure for its franchise. The story and theme was getting a lot of attention, but the gameplay was the same as always. Not something to pull away players overnight.
This paints an overly simplistic picture of the process. First of all, Halo 3 didn't actually keep the number one spot for three years straight. A while ago I actually wanted a clearer picture of the XBL activity placements of CoD and Halo games since Halo 3, and produced this graph. For the first two years, Halo 3 was trading places with CoD 4, until in 2009, two years after its release, it was finally pushed to second place by MW2. So, Halo in fact lost the number one spot during the life of Halo 3. Of course, that's not the belittle the achievment of Halo 3, because a two year old game going against a hot new game isn't exactly a fair comparison. But it still definitely shows that CoD 4 already snatched some of Halo 3's popularity, and MW 2 took the rest.

When I examined the activity placements, I also noticed that part of the quick downfall of Halo Reach might be attributed to the quick release cycle of CoD games. Because on one hand, we already have the fact that by the end of 2010, CoD was already bigger than Halo, so Reach was already facing an opposition Halo had never had before. Then Black Ops released a few weeks after, and stole all attention from Reach. Finally, in 2011 Black Ops 2 releases, and it's at this point that Reach totally tanks. Had CoD had a three year release schedule like Halo, Reach might have held the second place longer, and suistained a higher population.

However, I want to stress that I am not, by any means, totally attributing the failure of Reach to the success of CoD. All I'm saying is that there was more going on than the internal failures of Halo that contributed to its decline.

Also, one thing we can't forget is that while Halo was still growing in popularity at the time of Halo 3, Halo 3 still had worse population retention than Halo 2. This could be just a sign of large player populations behaving differently from small ones (this, by the way, is what I find quite plausible), or it could be a sign of Halo 3 facing more competition than Halo 2. However, it could also be early signs of fatigue.

Richnj wrote:
Speculation, sure, but I'd prefer to call them educated guesses since I have looked through as much data as is humanly possible to come to my conclusion.
And you're talking to a man who spent more time than he should've combing through archived pages of Bungie.net to reconstruct the population history of Halo as well as he could. We've all been there, and yet we don't arrive at the same conclusions. The data is inconclusive, and as educated as our guesses might be, they are still just guesses, and only gain credibility through evidence.

Most of our perception of how people view Halo is anecdotal. We can say it's based on data to sound more credible, but really, it just comes from the people we surround ourselves with. We talk with our friends about how Halo isn't what it used to be. We hear about it in the online communities we visit. And that makes us think "so this is what people think of Halo". And it could be true that this is what most people think, that these are an accurate reflection of why Halo lost popularity. But it could also be that we are just seeing what comes through the great filter that is the internet, which only lets through the extreme opinions.
treycen777 wrote:
Richnj wrote:
treycen777 wrote:
Richnj wrote:
Played all the Halos but I like sprint bc it’s a realistic option. Spartans are superhuman and humans can sprint.
It's the whole reason Bungie gave us regenerating shields, and why it was changed from a medi-pack system to a shield system. It was more fun that way.
It's a good system, but I hated the fact that they removed health system from Halo: CE, and replaced it with a regenerating health system in Halo 2 and 3. That was stupid. They brought it back in Reach (and ODST, with Stamina in place of Shields), but while only a small portion of your health would regenerate, along with your shields, it shouldn't regenerate at all.
Well obviously "fun" is subjective.

The point I was making is that it was changed from a design choice. Bungie wanted to keep the combat flowing, and they wanted to keep every fight equal. By keeping the medi-pack system it left players at the mercy of previous fights. Potentially slowing down the pace by forcing players to look for health packs, or losing your next fight because you took too much damage in the last fight.

For competitive games, and faster action, having fully regenerating health is the best mechanic for that gameplay design.

Obviously it is not the be-all and end-all of health systems.

LUKEPOWA wrote:
The point of a game is for fun. So, yes I want to feel like a super soldier. I don't play games so everyone can over analyze something as simple as sprint. I just play multiplayer for a good time, I'm not a professional athlete that is worried if every fight is completely fair and balanced. I have no idea why people think that sprint even changes the game that much. Why is it controversial enough to justify 724 pages of debate? So what, just s boost to speed at the cost to shooting. Make a decision, shoot or move faster.
3) In those 724 pages are some very good arguments against sprint. There's also a ton of repeating of those arguments because people keep coming in here saying "I've not read any of the previous pages but I like sprint so I think it should stay", and then people like me have to condense those arguments in a reply for the new commenters to actually read. Which quite frankly is insulting, because if you aren't going to try read the comments to understand the argument you are trying to counter with a personal preference you are just wasting everyone's time.

But for sprint itself. As I said on the previous page. Video games aren't about replicating the real world. They are about creating a world that runs on its own rules. Part of these include things like grenade damage, explosion radius, kill times, ranges of engagements, bullet magnetism, and this list goes on and on. Nothing is on accident. Its a highly controlled world. Throwing in a mechanic like sprint has an effect on everything you've built before. All of a sudden players are sprinting out of grenade ranges, our of combat before they are killed etc, and all that extends the kill times. Then that has an effect of the length of matches, so you add in a delay to shields when sprinting, (again) etc. What you've effectively done is add in a mechanic that changes your game on a base level.The ability to move AND shoot helped give rise to Halo's team work, because you could move and control the map while also shooting at the enemy. You didn't have to choose between moving to a team mate and shooting at the guy he's fighting with. You could do both.

The short of it is Halo 5 adds far more complexity, but isn't all that much more fun or deep. That's an issue and sprint is on of those complexity layers (the worst one since it then also leads on to abilities), and these extra complexity layers are actually off-putting for most players. This is one of the biggest reasons for Halo's decline in population. The casual audience that once enjoyed the game, no longer enjoy it
I do read the arguments and I hear the same weak arguments on both sides. I don't consider myself someone who likes sprint just someone who is okay with it. If you show me an alternative that allows faster movement, I'm all ears. I personally would love faster base movement without sprint. I love Halo 4 not because of sprint but because of loadouts, AA, and awsome BTB maps(Vortex, Ragnarok, Meltdown). As I had to explain to another guy, I would have no problem if Halo 6 has no sprint. I just want faster movement. I absolutely hate how slow Halo 3's movement is.

The decline in population could be the fact that people are board of it and the new generation of gamers are playing COD. Why would the change of gameplay lower population when the majority of gamers are kids. Many young gamers never played Halo 3. I have played every Halo, but can't get into classic multiplayer. I have tried Battlefield and COD and they just were not fun but Halo 4 is really fun despite being different from classic Halo. It feels similar but with more fluid movement and better weapon balance. Maybe population has gone down due to so many more fps game options vs 10-15 years ago.
Can you explain these "weak" arguments from the "no-Sprint" crowd. The only weak argument that I know of is "it's an illusion". No, it isn't. Also, Halo 3's movement is terrible because Bungie stopped caring about Halo, they didn't care how flawed it in comparison to the first two games. Movement Acceleration and a ridiculous narrowed FoV is why Halo 3 feels so slow in the first place. Halo 2 had narrower FoV than CE, but at least you could actually strafe in both of those games.

(2)Also, I get sick and tired of people claiming Halo's population took a nosedive simply because there's more competition in the market, now, than in 2007. Halo 4 feels absolutely NOTHING like Classic Halo. You actually think Halo 4 has better balance than any Halo after it? You think people spawning with different weapons is balanced? You think Ordnance Drops are balanced for competitive play? Do you even know what balance means?
Quote:
No one clearly expresses why they hate it or love it.
(1)People aren't going to regurgitate seven years of the "Sprint" debate just for you to understand why it's loved/hated by certain people. The fact is, it doesn't belong in a game with slow kill-times. End of discussion.
(1)No facts, just opinion. Your post is an example of the "weak" arguments I was talking about. "The fact is, it doesn't belong in a game with slow kill-times. End of discussion." No facts, all opinion. As usual, expresses opinion as fact.
(2)Halo 4 feels enough like classic Halo for me. Classic: shields, motion trackers, vehicles, map control, Modern: sprint, loadouts, ordinance. Still has the important Halo elements to me. Feeling is all subjective though, so no point of arguing with you on this one.
When I said balance, I meant the BR, DMR, Carbine, Light Rifle, and AR all have strengths and weaknesses. When I said balance, I meant weapons only, not gameplay. I think one weapon controlling the game is unbalanced(I'm looking at you, Halo 2). Do you no what balance means? I personally liked Halo 4's randomness, but if you didn't, don't play it. Do you think that the BR being better than everything else in Halo 2(including duel wielding) is balanced?
Richnj wrote:
Richnj wrote:
treycen777 wrote:
Richnj wrote:
Played all the Halos but I like sprint bc it’s a realistic option. Spartans are superhuman and humans can sprint.
It's the whole reason Bungie gave us regenerating shields, and why it was changed from a medi-pack system to a shield system. It was more fun that way.
I do read the arguments and I hear the same weak arguments on both sides. I don't consider myself someone who likes sprint just someone who is okay with it. (1)If you show me an alternative that allows faster movement, I'm all ears. I personally would love faster base movement without sprint. I love Halo 4 not because of sprint but because of loadouts, AA, and awsome BTB maps(Vortex, Ragnarok, Meltdown). As I had to explain to another guy, I would have no problem if Halo 6 has no sprint. I just want faster movement. I absolutely hate how slow Halo 3's movement is.

The decline in population could be the fact that people are board of it and the new generation of gamers are playing COD. (4) Why would the change of gameplay lower population when the (5) majority of gamers are kids. (2) Many young gamers never played Halo 3. I have played every Halo, but can't get into classic multiplayer. I have tried Battlefield and COD and they just were not fun but Halo 4 is really fun despite being different from classic Halo. It feels similar but with more fluid movement and better weapon balance. (3) Maybe population has gone down due to so many more fps game options vs 10-15 years ago.
1) Doom. It has been said several times on here already. Increasing base movement speed is more than possible. It's also been said several times how part of Halo 3's slow feel is because of a low FoV. For someone that claims to have read the arguments you are still seemingly arguing that without sprint we'd be left with movement as slow as Halo 3.

2) Many Halo 3 players weren't kids. I made a ton of adult friends. And the majority of Halo 3 players had never played Halo 2, and many that I met had never played an FPS, left alone a MP title before. The appeal of Halo 3 wasn't based on previous experiences. It was based on the simple-to-learn/simple-to-understand nature of the game. (again, please refer back to my previous post and the link there in. It shows depth vs complexity and how complexity can actually drive players away from games early).

3) Maybe, but in 2007 alone we had Halo 3, COD 4, Team Fortress 2, Quake Wars, and Medal of Honor Airborne. All coming in to go against games like Rainbow 6 Vegas, COD 2, COD 3 and Battlefield 2. So I mean, people had options. So obviously Halo 2 players returned to Halo 3, then Halo 3 also picked up a ton of new players as well. Why? they had lots of options?, why Halo 3? other than hype, as I said, it was the simple yet deep gameplay. As I go in to later, Halo Reach and Halo 4 saw bigger declines in their population. So did that have more competition? FPS MP games out against Halo Reach = COD MW2/Black Ops, BF Bad Company 2 and AvP, much less competition than Halo 3 had. Halo 4 = COD MW3/Black Op 2, and Battlefield 3, that's even less competition (and as I point out, it performed the worst).

4) Now Halo Reach saw a decline. Wasn't a death sentence for the game or franchise but it was significant. Halo Reach is also the first game to be a departure from the equal starts simple gameplay as well. Then along comes Halo 4. The sequel to the last Classic Halo title, Halo 3. Halo 4 sold fantastically, nearly rivaling Halo 3. The promises 343i made about bringing Halo back to its roots (and yes, they did make those claims. I was active on the forums way back then Even the first gif of gameplay was done to appear like Halo 3) drove hype, drove excitement for the game, drove sales. It wasn't long however that people realised that Halo 4 did not deliver the classic experience 343i (and the title of Halo '4') promised. So the game saw a huge drop in population.

5) No they aren't. Only 29% of gamers are under 18. The average gamer is 31 years old. Funny that, since it better represents my age, and these gamers were almost adults when Halo 2 launched, they were 21 by the time Halo 3 came out. Linky. (This study is from 3 years ago, so that age has probably increased by at least another year)

The data seems to point at the fact that the more additions Halo took from COD in order to attract the people playing COD, the worse it performed. Now I hate the COD franchise, and actually including these elements drove me away from the Halo games. SO what really killed Halo was the lack of belief in the strength of being unique. Players were looking at COD and looking at Halo and seeing the two start to merge in their experiences. Only Halo did the experience far less effectively. SO COD lovers stayed on COD, and Halo loves left because Halo no longer felt like Halo. With all modern MP FPS shooters having Loadouts, Sprint and Abilities, Halo had the chance to side step competition and carve out its own community of players who don't want a 'modern' shooter. Instead it tried to compete directly and has failed. So yes, sprint (sprint being a symptom of a larger cause) has helped with the decline in Halo's popularity.
(1) I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before, but I did read about Doom. I never played but have heard how they did movement and would be fine with that for Halo. Again, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about sprint but I have no problem with faster base movement speed. I think we are in agreement, it is just that I didn't clarify.
(2) This surprises me, I always thought that most gamers were kids. I started playing Halo at 10, so I considered myself as the norm. I did watch the "depth vs complexity" video and I get what your saying but it varies from person to person. I personally like slightly more complexity that Halo 2. That's why I now find Halo CE boring. As a kid I loved it, but now I require a little more in gameplay.
(3) Okay, your probably right about this, I never played multiplayer in the "Halo 3 days", therefore I have no idea what it was like in its prime.
(4) This is something that applies to me. I started with Reach and 4(online), therefore, the older games seem like a step backwards for me. I started with loadouts, thinking of it as the norm.
(5) This makes me think that I'm young for a gamer. I always thought of myself as a old gamer, I'm only 21. I always hear little kids playing Halo 4 and 5; therefore always though that was why so many people stand there, drive a mongoose around, shoot allies, ect.

In summary, I like the more modern Halo mechanics but I wouldn't mind the removal of sprint for a base speed increase. I want to make it clear to everyone that I am not defending sprint at all costs. If lore said sprint had to go, I would be fine with it. Most of the debate over modern vs classic Halo is subjective. If you were to tell me that everybody hated the change from Halo 3 to 4, I would still prefer Halo 4 over 3. I am not basing my opinion on the popular game but what I have the most fun playing. Whatever flaws Halo 4 has, it doesn't matter to me as long as I enjoy playing it. I do play occasional classic multiplayer and enjoy some matches but I prefer faster paced gameplay. I already have heard the argument, "Sprint doesn't make the game faster", well at least it feels faster paced. I would prefer to actually be moving faster without map reduction. Richnj, I don't think were in that much disagreement, just different tastes in games.
tsassi wrote:
Richnj wrote:
This paints an overly simplistic picture of the process. First of all, Halo 3 didn't actually keep the number one spot for three years straight. A while ago I actually wanted a clearer picture of the XBL activity placements of CoD and Halo games since Halo 3, and produced this graph. For the first two years, Halo 3 was trading places with CoD 4, until in 2009, two years after its release, it was finally pushed to second place by MW2. So, Halo in fact lost the number one spot during the life of Halo 3. Of course, that's not the belittle the achievment of Halo 3, because a two year old game going against a hot new game isn't exactly a fair comparison. But it still definitely shows that CoD 4 already snatched some of Halo 3's popularity, and MW 2 took the rest.

When I examined the activity placements, I also noticed that part of the quick downfall of Halo Reach might be attributed to the quick release cycle of CoD games. Because on one hand, we already have the fact that by the end of 2010, CoD was already bigger than Halo, so Reach was already facing an opposition Halo had never had before. Then Black Ops released a few weeks after, and stole all attention from Reach. Finally, in 2011 Black Ops 2 releases, and it's at this point that Reach totally tanks. Had CoD had a three year release schedule like Halo, Reach might have held the second place longer, and suistained a higher population.
I mean, I concede that COD had, and still has the larger community. The fact that it was able to keep two to three games in the most played list year after year is mind blowing really. You're graph is fantastic, and it does show COD being more popular for a long time, before the launches of Reach and H4.

Something interesting in that graph though. Halo 3 did dip, but it wasn't until Halo Reach that it was "killed" off. Halo Reach, did perform worse and was seemingly affected by a release of MW3, but again wasn't "killed" off until Halo 4 launched. Halo 4 however, just drops like a stone, completely unrelated to other MP FPS releases. (unless we assume that the majority of Halo 4 players moved over to Black Ops 2, but that would again only re-enforce my opinion that trying to compete with COD head to head is a poor strategy). Halo 4 just died all on its own.

The players that saw value in Halo 3 even after 2 years, and the players that saw value in Halo Reach despite its flaws, seemingly didn't find any value in Halo 4. Why?,

(I'm going leave it there because we are in a Sprint thread and sooner or later we will get shut down.)
Quote:
I see the same arguments again and again. "Sprint sucks and you have no proof of it being good" or "Sprint makes Halo less unique" and "All games have sprint and people who don't like sprint are old and I unadaptable" or "Sprint is in all other modern games". No one clearly expresses why they hate it or love it. I want to move faster and I don't care if it is sprint or regular walking, at a faster speed.
The consistency with which an argument is repeated has no bearing on its validity.

Many people have very clearly expressed why they feel the way they do about sprint, if you haven't seen it, you haven't even tried to look for it. I have a post on page 721 of this very thread that goes into heavy detail about how sprint damages the integrity of halo from map design, to player decision making, to weapon balance. Got a good deal of upvotes for it too.
Quote:
I hate moving like a snail in Halo 3.
There is a pretty common assumption people make: "people who don't want sprint want a clone of Halo 3's movement system". That couldn't be further from the truth. Nobody wants a clone of Halo 3. Halo 3 is old and outdated. We, the classic movement fans, universally want a higher base movement speed and less floaty jumps than what Halo 3 had. Ideally, we would see a much faster game than Halo 3 was, but we would do so while putting the advanced mobility options on the map in the form of pickups, gravity lifts, vehicles, and mancannons. Of which the latter three have been basically removed from the game. The closest we see is a gravity lift being used as an elevator on a few maps.
Quote:
I like Halo 4 because of loadouts and fun maps, not sprint.
That's a really unusual opinion, as is liking Halo 4's MP in general. Halo 4 was brutalized for it's uneven starts and famously terrible map flow, so much so that sprint was often swept under the rug. It's only now that we've gotten rid of that stuff that the community has focused attention onto sprinting.
Richnj wrote:
Richnj wrote:
treycen777 wrote:
Richnj wrote:
Played all the Halos but I like sprint bc it’s a realistic option. Spartans are superhuman and humans can sprint.
It's the whole reason Bungie gave us regenerating shields, and why it was changed from a medi-pack system to a shield system. It was more fun that way.
(2) This surprises me, I always thought that most gamers were kids. I started playing Halo at 10, so I considered myself as the norm. I did watch the "depth vs complexity" video and I get what your saying but it varies from person to person. I personally like slightly more complexity that Halo 2. That's why I now find Halo CE boring. As a kid I loved it, but now I require a little more in gameplay.

(5) This makes me think that I'm young for a gamer. I always thought of myself as a old gamer, I'm only 21. I always hear little kids playing Halo 4 and 5; therefore always though that was why so many people stand there, drive a mongoose around, shoot allies, ect.

There are, and even back during Halo 2 and 3's hay days, a lot of kids that play Halo. Very rarely though did I hear an actual child (15 and younger). I mean, you said you missed those days, and in my experience there were far more older. Let's say 16+.

What is ironic is that the majority of immature behaviour came from the 16 to 25 year olds. It was an absolutely toxic atmosphere, and even me at 19 added my fair share, if not more. If you think today's gamer is toxic, we were oh so much worse. A year in to Halo 3 and MS released the Party Chat and that was it. In game chat pretty much ended. Adults were sick of hearing toxicity through their headsets and long time players started jumping in to parties. In one sense it's a shame because in game chat was far more active than it is today. Now you just get the few randoms and children who are looking to interact and make friends. Where as every one else has been pretty much conditioned to avoid in game chat.

You are not an old gamer by any stretch of the imagination. Compared to me especially. During (and through) Halo 3 (then eventually Reach) I met my ex-Fiancee, and we both had our own groups of friends who played Halo, around 20 in each group. The majority of whom were 22+ and that was ten years ago. I had my cousin, and brother and their friends, who were around 15 then. They were the youngest of our groups, and have experienced Halo MP from Halo 2 onwards as the games came out. (They use to bring their xbox OG/360s round to mine and we'd have them all lined up to play online together).

I've even started a new generation of gamers with my nephews, and I'm looking to start a 4th with my infant son as he grows up.

But when I started Halo 3 and really grew my circle of Halo friends, I was already older than you are now. Quite frankly I'm looking forward to being a gamer in to my 40s, 50s and 60s.
treycen777 wrote:
Richnj wrote:
treycen777 wrote:
Richnj wrote:
Played all the Halos but I like sprint bc it’s a realistic option. Spartans are superhuman and humans can sprint.
It's the whole reason Bungie gave us regenerating shields, and why it was changed from a medi-pack system to a shield system. It was more fun that way.
It's a good system, but I hated the fact that they removed health system from Halo: CE, and replaced it with a regenerating health system in Halo 2 and 3. That was stupid. They brought it back in Reach (and ODST, with Stamina in place of Shields), but while only a small portion of your health would regenerate, along with your shields, it shouldn't regenerate at all.
Well obviously "fun" is subjective.

The point I was making is that it was changed from a design choice. Bungie wanted to keep the combat flowing, and they wanted to keep every fight equal. By keeping the medi-pack system it left players at the mercy of previous fights. Potentially slowing down the pace by forcing players to look for health packs, or losing your next fight because you took too much damage in the last fight.

For competitive games, and faster action, having fully regenerating health is the best mechanic for that gameplay design.

Obviously it is not the be-all and end-all of health systems.

LUKEPOWA wrote:
The point of a game is for fun. So, yes I want to feel like a super soldier. I don't play games so everyone can over analyze something as simple as sprint. I just play multiplayer for a good time, I'm not a professional athlete that is worried if every fight is completely fair and balanced. I have no idea why people think that sprint even changes the game that much. Why is it controversial enough to justify 724 pages of debate? So what, just s boost to speed at the cost to shooting. Make a decision, shoot or move faster.
3) In those 724 pages are some very good arguments against sprint. There's also a ton of repeating of those arguments because people keep coming in here saying "I've not read any of the previous pages but I like sprint so I think it should stay", and then people like me have to condense those arguments in a reply for the new commenters to actually read. Which quite frankly is insulting, because if you aren't going to try read the comments to understand the argument you are trying to counter with a personal preference you are just wasting everyone's time.

But for sprint itself. As I said on the previous page. Video games aren't about replicating the real world. They are about creating a world that runs on its own rules. Part of these include things like grenade damage, explosion radius, kill times, ranges of engagements, bullet magnetism, and this list goes on and on. Nothing is on accident. Its a highly controlled world. Throwing in a mechanic like sprint has an effect on everything you've built before. All of a sudden players are sprinting out of grenade ranges, our of combat before they are killed etc, and all that extends the kill times. Then that has an effect of the length of matches, so you add in a delay to shields when sprinting, (again) etc. What you've effectively done is add in a mechanic that changes your game on a base level.The ability to move AND shoot helped give rise to Halo's team work, because you could move and control the map while also shooting at the enemy. You didn't have to choose between moving to a team mate and shooting at the guy he's fighting with. You could do both.

The short of it is Halo 5 adds far more complexity, but isn't all that much more fun or deep. That's an issue and sprint is on of those complexity layers (the worst one since it then also leads on to abilities), and these extra complexity layers are actually off-putting for most players. This is one of the biggest reasons for Halo's decline in population. The casual audience that once enjoyed the game, no longer enjoy it
(snip)
Quote:
(snip)
(snip)
(1)No facts, just opinion. Your post is an example of the "weak" arguments I was talking about. "The fact is, it doesn't belong in a game with slow kill-times. End of discussion." No facts, all opinion. As usual, expresses opinion as fact.
(2)Halo 4 feels enough like classic Halo for me. Classic: shields, motion trackers, vehicles, map control, Modern: sprint, loadouts, ordinance. Still has the important Halo elements to me. Feeling is all subjective though, so no point of arguing with you on this one.
When I said balance, I meant the BR, DMR, Carbine, Light Rifle, and AR all have strengths and weaknesses. When I said balance, I meant weapons only, not gameplay. I think one weapon controlling the game is unbalanced(I'm looking at you, Halo 2). Do you no what balance means? I personally liked Halo 4's randomness, but if you didn't, don't play it. Do you think that the BR being better than everything else in Halo 2(including duel wielding) is balanced?
It wasn't even an argument to begin with, because that "opinion" actually holds much more water than the "lore" and "feelings" nonsense people like you try to throw at me.

It might "feel" like Classic Halo to you, but it's most likely because you don't pay attention on how differently the game plays in hindsight, compared to previous Halo titles. Just because it has a few little elements from Classic Halo, doesn't mean, "oh, this game feels like Halo because it's got shieldzz11!" Who cares if feeling is subjective? This might be a shock to everyone here, since we like to think that being "subjective" about everything makes us somehow immune to being wrong, but opinions can still be wrong, so it doesn't matter if it's all subjective, or not.

Those guns aren't balanced for the simple reason is that only two of them are worth using; there isn't any strengths or weaknesses with these guns, it just boils down to some of them having a larger range, RoF, Aim Assist, and Bullet Magnetism. The AR is a spary-weapon, so how does that count? Everything I mentioned about Halo 4 being unbalanced involves the weapons in the game. Randomness is why MLG Halo isn't interesting to watch, anymore, because it effectively damaged the game's competitive merit. Read my quote I made on the last page:
Quote:
That just the point: players that died are not equal because they respawn with low tier weapons while others are in possession of Precision and/or Power Weapons. This is a balancing issue in every single game after CE (since it's the only game to get the weapon sandbox right), because you don't spawn with a true utility weapon that can be effective to use against a Rocket/Sniper user, you spawn with an automatic (H2's SMG and 3's AR) and a weapon that might as well be exchanged most of the time (every pistol after CE). You are automatically at a disadvantage.
Of course Halo 2's sandbox was unbalanced. Halo 4's is still worse, though.
sprint needs to go, it completely ruins halo's core gameplay ALONG with the -Yoinking!- spartan abilities. If you are caught in the open due to a poor decision to run out of cover, all you have to do its press B and return to cover unharmed, it completely undermines the tactical gameplay had in the past where POSITION was the difference between life or death. Now you can sprint from cover to cover and thrust away from fire which isn't right, if you choose to leave cover at the wrong time you should be punished.

Also games do not need sprint, look at CSGO, no sprinting in that and it is one of if not the most successful FPS atm.
didn't even bother reading it because it is the dumbest topic out there right now. Just because it has sprint doesn't mean its not Halo. It's one whole mechanic, that's it. If you don't like sprint, don't sprint. Problem solved.
The maps are made for sprint, not sprinting puts you at a distinct disadvantage and ruins halo's gameplay mechanics.
I like for Sprint to remain how it is now.
I like for Sprint to remain how it is now.
This. I like this post. I agree.
Nooga wrote:
I like for Sprint to remain how it is now.
This. I like this post. I agree.
This doesn't really add to the discussion. Okay, you like it. But why do you like it when there is so much evidence pointing out how negative it is for Halo?

I just don't get how, after all the information out there even with the proof that it doesn't actually make the game faster, or you move faster compared to other Halo games without it, that players still want it in.

My main reason for hoping that it doesn't return in Halo 6 is the fact that 343 put it in simply because every other modern FPS has it. I like and play Halo because it is not like other shooters. I don't want to play a game that has Destiny mechanics or CODlike loadouts. I don't want Sprint for the sake of Sprint. I don't need the illusion of fast gameplay. I need the reality of a well balanced Halo.
DaxSeven09 wrote:
Nooga wrote:
I like for Sprint to remain how it is now.
This. I like this post. I agree.
This doesn't really add to the discussion. Okay, you like it. But why do you like it when there is so much evidence pointing out how negative it is for Halo?

I just don't get how, after all the information out there even with the proof that it doesn't actually make the game faster, or you move faster compared to other Halo games without it, that players still want it in.

My main reason for hoping that it doesn't return in Halo 6 is the fact that 343 put it in simply because every other modern FPS has it. I like and play Halo because it is not like other shooters. I don't want to play a game that has Destiny mechanics or CODlike loadouts. I don't want Sprint for the sake of Sprint. I don't need the illusion of fast gameplay. I need the reality of a well balanced Halo.
I like the animation. Idc about movement speed, other than Halo 3's "im a superhuman with a max speed of a dead turtle!". Call that an FOV issue or whatever but its awful to me.
Ive played all of the games, when they launched. Out of the 3 games that have had sprint and the 3 games without i like the half with it a lot better. I feel like a Spartan in Halo 5. If they remove it, i will still play because i play Halo because I love the series. Not because of mechanics. Im almost 100% sure they wont remove it completely because of gaming trends and newer gamers wont take to not having sprint as well as those of us that remember the market without it. Maybe they will go back to a more Reach style. Im fine with that because thats the ability i used in that game. Maybe they will do the ramp up style that Bungie was going to put in Halo 2 but didnt because of time restraints. In my opinion it needs to be in the game in some form or it will hurt the series in terms of multiplayer population.
In all honesty this debate is almost completely subjective. I like sprint for my reasons. Other people like it for other reasons. Are they just illusions to make us feel a certain way? Maybe. I really dont care. You dont want sprint in for certain reason. Someone else may not want it in for a completely different reason. No one is correct and ultimately its up to 343i and im pretty sure they have already made up their mind one way or the other.
Nooga wrote:
DaxSeven09 wrote:
Nooga wrote:
I like for Sprint to remain how it is now.
This. I like this post. I agree.
This doesn't really add to the discussion. Okay, you like it. But why do you like it when there is so much evidence pointing out how negative it is for Halo?

I just don't get how, after all the information out there even with the proof that it doesn't actually make the game faster, or you move faster compared to other Halo games without it, that players still want it in.

My main reason for hoping that it doesn't return in Halo 6 is the fact that 343 put it in simply because every other modern FPS has it. I like and play Halo because it is not like other shooters. I don't want to play a game that has Destiny mechanics or CODlike loadouts. I don't want Sprint for the sake of Sprint. I don't need the illusion of fast gameplay. I need the reality of a well balanced Halo.
(A) I like the animation. Idc about movement speed, other than Halo 3's "im a superhuman with a max speed of a dead turtle!". Call that an FOV issue or whatever but its awful to me.
Ive played all of the games, when they launched. Out of the 3 games that have had sprint and the 3 games without i like the half with it a lot better. I feel like a Spartan in Halo 5. If they remove it, i will still play because i play Halo because I love the series. Not because of mechanics. Im almost 100% sure they wont remove it completely because of gaming trends and (2) newer gamers wont take to not having sprint as well as those of us that remember the market without it. Maybe they will go back to a more Reach style. Im fine with that because thats the ability i used in that game. (4)Maybe they will do the ramp up style that Bungie was going to put in Halo 2 but didnt because of time restraints. (3) In my opinion it needs to be in the game in some form or it will hurt the series in terms of multiplayer population.
In all honesty this debate is almost completely subjective. (1) I like sprint for my reasons. Other people like it for other reasons. (B) Are they just illusions to make us feel a certain way? Maybe. I really dont care. You dont want sprint in for certain reason. Someone else may not want it in for a completely different reason. No one is correct and ultimately its up to 343i and im pretty sure they have already made up their mind one way or the other.
1) That's great and all but you didn't really explain what those reasons were. See a) and b). You just said you like the animation, and maybe not because of the way it feels to you or because of any gameplay advantage it brings. Would you be happy if we added the animation but it gave zero change in movement speed?

2) Why? If players from 1997 to 2007 adapted to having sprint becoming the standard in 2007 onwards. Then why couldn't players from 2007 to 2017 adapt to games without sprint from 2017 and onwards? You said it yourself. You prefer the 3 games with sprint than you did the 3 games without sprint. Was that because of the addition of sprint?, or was there other features and mechanics that you liked and sprint just happened to be in those three titles?.

3) Looking at the data that's not the case. Halo Reach, and especially Halo 4 both suffered greatly (see the above links). Now as me and tsassi were discussing, there's no definitive data that shows Sprint as the cause for this decline. What it does show is that sprint alone is not a franchise saving mechanic, and there's no data or basis for the theory that without it Halo would sink. Because there has been no Halo game launched without sprint that sank. The closest we get are MCC and Doom. Both are not great for comparisons. MCC was extremely broken at launch, had game breaking bugs and community destroying designs. Doom has never had a big MP scene on console, and again the game itself suffered from its own issues completely unrelated to a sprint mechanic.

4) It's worth remembering that much of the content for Halo 3 came from what they cut from Halo 2. Anything that could work pretty much made it in to Halo 3. I'm sure that if a ramp up sprint was ever going to work with the classic Halo design, it would have appeared in Halo 3 as well. Despite the modern sprint mechanic existed since 2004 and becoming popular with COD:MW in 2007 and sprint as a whole existed since 1985 in Super Mario Bros, and also appearing the very first FPS titles Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. I think the fact that Bungie from 2004 to 2007, and from 2007 to 2011 out right refused to add sprint as a default option to the Halo games shows that they probably tested the feature and deemed it to be at a conflict with the rest of the design philosophy. Halo obviously being more based on old school arena shooters rather than military shooters.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 724
  4. 725
  5. 726
  6. 727
  7. 728
  8. ...
  9. 738